Over the last four weeks you may be aware that many governments have been pumping money into their failing banking systems in an attempt to salvage the mortgage markets. The reason for this is that all the bad debt, known as toxic debt, is having a detrimental effect on the financial institutions and is making us all worse off.
So the big question is will injecting this money actually get the banks lending again and if they do, will it have any effect on us, the general public. In answering this question and dealing with the issues here I can only comment on our particular situation here in the United Kingdom. Whilst it may be similar in other parts of the world I cannot comment due to the fact that I am unfamiliar as to how their market works, so what may have an effect here may not be the case anywhere else.
To most people the credit crunch is all about banks not having the money to lend. So it is fair to assume that if you give the banks the money that will solve the problem. Sorry this is not the case in fact this is actually far from the case. Banks not having the money to lend is only one aspect of the problem. Most banks are "once bitten twice shy" to coin a phrase. They have lent badly and are now paying the price, it is this issue that will be with us way beyond any bailout plan has been agreed and distributed.
The main result and contributory factor to the current financial predicament is that of house prices, and house prices are not only falling but are set to continue to fall for the foreseeable future. Consequently lenders are finding that they have to tighten all their criteria not least in the area of loan to value LTV, that is the amount of money that is lent based on the value of the property. Most lenders during 2007 lent up to 95% LTV some lent 100% LTV and in some cases they went as high as 125%LTV.
While the market is buoyant most annalists will agree this type of lending is OK. Think about it if you lend on a 100,000 house 125% which results in a loan of 125,000 and the house price rises over the next three years at a rate of 10% per annum, which was not unheard of. Then your LTV in three years time would only be 93% this is alright from a lending point of view and what would be considered an acceptable risk.
But the problem that we face is that house prices are going in the opposite direction. The decline is at least 10% and analysts figure that it could get worse. So, if 100,000 was lent on an 85,000 property then in the same three year time span the loan could have actually increased to 118% LTV. Now I am sure you would agree that in this present climate that this sort of loaning is both irresponsible and detrimental to all involved.
So with regards to the money bailouts, what does this mean for our financial future? In my professional opinion I believe that there will be little overall effect, although with any luck time will prove me wrong. Although lenders are now obliged to lend in 2009 at the rates of 2007, as you will see from the first part of this article they won't be able to lend at the high LTV rates of 2007. The people who are now desperate to borrow are those coming out of rates already arranged in the past 5 years, and these borrowers are going to push the LTV to its limit because of the drop in house prices.
You also need to take into account that a lot of people in the last few years have acquired mortgages on a self certification basis. These sort of mortgages are now considered high risk for lenders and so are mostly unavailable, and even if they are available they will be at greatly reduced LTVs, so what options do these people have to chose from?
So whilst I do welcome the money that is being injected into the finance market I sadly think that whilst property continues to fall and lenders fail to have the pre 2008 appetite for lending it is more than likely just going to be stockpiled. This will have a domino effect as house prices will continue to fall because of the lack of lending at the right LTV with the right lending criteria which again will make lenders even less willing to lend. I have to say this is quite a quandary and I honestly don't see how it can be stopped until someone has the bravery to just lend knowing the calculated risk it represents I think it is fondly known as taking a punt!. - 16928
So the big question is will injecting this money actually get the banks lending again and if they do, will it have any effect on us, the general public. In answering this question and dealing with the issues here I can only comment on our particular situation here in the United Kingdom. Whilst it may be similar in other parts of the world I cannot comment due to the fact that I am unfamiliar as to how their market works, so what may have an effect here may not be the case anywhere else.
To most people the credit crunch is all about banks not having the money to lend. So it is fair to assume that if you give the banks the money that will solve the problem. Sorry this is not the case in fact this is actually far from the case. Banks not having the money to lend is only one aspect of the problem. Most banks are "once bitten twice shy" to coin a phrase. They have lent badly and are now paying the price, it is this issue that will be with us way beyond any bailout plan has been agreed and distributed.
The main result and contributory factor to the current financial predicament is that of house prices, and house prices are not only falling but are set to continue to fall for the foreseeable future. Consequently lenders are finding that they have to tighten all their criteria not least in the area of loan to value LTV, that is the amount of money that is lent based on the value of the property. Most lenders during 2007 lent up to 95% LTV some lent 100% LTV and in some cases they went as high as 125%LTV.
While the market is buoyant most annalists will agree this type of lending is OK. Think about it if you lend on a 100,000 house 125% which results in a loan of 125,000 and the house price rises over the next three years at a rate of 10% per annum, which was not unheard of. Then your LTV in three years time would only be 93% this is alright from a lending point of view and what would be considered an acceptable risk.
But the problem that we face is that house prices are going in the opposite direction. The decline is at least 10% and analysts figure that it could get worse. So, if 100,000 was lent on an 85,000 property then in the same three year time span the loan could have actually increased to 118% LTV. Now I am sure you would agree that in this present climate that this sort of loaning is both irresponsible and detrimental to all involved.
So with regards to the money bailouts, what does this mean for our financial future? In my professional opinion I believe that there will be little overall effect, although with any luck time will prove me wrong. Although lenders are now obliged to lend in 2009 at the rates of 2007, as you will see from the first part of this article they won't be able to lend at the high LTV rates of 2007. The people who are now desperate to borrow are those coming out of rates already arranged in the past 5 years, and these borrowers are going to push the LTV to its limit because of the drop in house prices.
You also need to take into account that a lot of people in the last few years have acquired mortgages on a self certification basis. These sort of mortgages are now considered high risk for lenders and so are mostly unavailable, and even if they are available they will be at greatly reduced LTVs, so what options do these people have to chose from?
So whilst I do welcome the money that is being injected into the finance market I sadly think that whilst property continues to fall and lenders fail to have the pre 2008 appetite for lending it is more than likely just going to be stockpiled. This will have a domino effect as house prices will continue to fall because of the lack of lending at the right LTV with the right lending criteria which again will make lenders even less willing to lend. I have to say this is quite a quandary and I honestly don't see how it can be stopped until someone has the bravery to just lend knowing the calculated risk it represents I think it is fondly known as taking a punt!. - 16928
About the Author:
Mortgage Route offers information help and mortgage advice from qualified mortgage brokers along with no obligation mortgage calculators and sourcing tools. Don't reprint this exact article. Instead, reprint a free unique content version of this same article.
No comments:
Post a Comment